CHARACTERISTICS OF CHRIST'S PREACHING.

117

analytic discourse, they are little moved, and less profited. They may admire, vaguely, the preacher's profoundness, but they understand him not, and weariness soon ensues. They care much less, indeed, for the recondite qualities of things, than for their obvious and practical nature. If truth interest them at all, it is in the living and palpable forms which the Bible gives it. If the water of life allures them, it is not as decomposed, but as it flows from the throne of God and the Lamb. And the common people, be it remembered, are the great mass of the people, the great majority of our hearers, and withal the most hopeful subjects of ministerial labour. It was so in the days of Christ. His ministry was chiefly attended by the plain people, and of that class were most of his followers. He had good reason, then, for adapting his preaching to such. his ministers now. He of whom it cannot be common people hear him gladly, may look for little success as a preacher of the gospel. He may be distinguished as a poet, or a critic, as a historian, an antiquarian, or a metaphysician, as deeply versed in theology even-but not as winning souls to Christ.

And so have

said that the

The wisdom of our Lord's example, in respect to the point in hand, may be still further evinced. Simplicity of discourse is quite as effective with the truly intellectual, as with the common people. It is no indication of feebleness or poverty of mind, but the very reverse. It is easy enough to make a plain subject dark, by pedantic and profitless distinctions and definitions; but it is one of the highest achievements of intellect to make a dark subject so plain, that all shall wonder it ever seemed otherwise. Never is learning so magnified, as when she passes over her processes, and gives you her simple results. So the truly learned judge. Hence they respect most highly the preacher who, other things being equal, is most eminent for simplicity of discourse. And the preaching of such a man is to them, as well as the common people, the most impressive. The truth is, the commonest sympathies of our race, the most ordinary springs of action, are ever the mightiest. Ascertain what chord is of deepest tone in the hearts of the multitude, and you have learned what chord will vibrate most powerfully in the bosoms of the intellectual few.-American Biblical Repository.

REFUTED ERRORS.

NO. I.

It will be the aim of these articles to explain and refute some of the leading errors which have become, through misdirected industry and talent, alarmingly prevalent in the present day. Our remarks are intended mainly for the young, whose minds ought to be sacredly guarded by scriptural truth against the cunning assaults of the agents of the father of lies. The teachers of error at the present time are looking to the young as their simple and unsuspecting victims—are circulating tracts and plain rudimental lessons of subtle falsehood for the purpose of securing their future adherence. What can be a louder call than such a course of conduct, for earnest and persevering efforts to uphold the interests of truth and to protect the understandings of the young? for if they desert our churches and backslide from the faith once delivered to the saints, what shall prevent our Zions from being turned into howling wastes, or where shall we look for recruits to fill up those ranks of the faithful which death is daily thinning? We regard it, therefore, as a solemn and imperative duty in the sight of God to write, not only to fathers and old men, but to the thoughtful youths of our congregations on whose firmness and decision so much depends. We will attempt to set before them a plain refutation of some of those enormous errors with which they will assuredly be attacked in their intercourse with society, and which it will be for the honour of their religion to be able to meet and repel.

One great and pernicious error now industriously circulated, both from the pulpit and from the press, is that which calls upon us to judge of ministers by their office only, and not by their character as preachers of the gospel of truth. According to this criterion we have simply to ask respecting a minister-has he been ordained by a bishop?-is he legally entitled to preach in a parish church? and if these questions are satisfactorily answered, we are bound to pay him the most implicit obedience, to reverence him as an ambassador of the Lord. Does he inculcate Socinianism or Arianism? it is of no consequence he is episcopally ordained! Does he charge us to believe that a

little bit of bread contains the whole body, blood, and divinity of our Saviour, and that whoever refuses to admit this impious tenet, is "damned if he eat"-damned in the most tremendous sense of that word?—still while shuddering at such language we are comforted on reflecting that the speaker is episcopally ordained! Do the advocates of this very theory allow that the minister, whom we have been attempting to describe, may be an active disseminator of positive mischief—that the sustenance which he proffers is little better than poison ?—what of all this they say he is accredited by his ordination-he is the chosen representative of Christ―apostolically separated to teach, or lead astray, or poison, or murder, as his inclinations prompt him.

Such is the simple statement of the error as it is at present enforced by many, not only worldly men, but by those who have been considered as evangelical ministers. Now we feel quite confident that our young friends recoil from these abominations with horror; but we are desirous of presenting them with a plain way of opposing and refuting them. Let us turn now to the scriptures of truth. What is the criterion of a true minister which they give us? Search from the first chapter of Matthew to the twenty-second of Revelations and see if there is one verse which bids us judge of pastors by their episcopal ordination? On the contrary it is as clear as if written with a sunbeam, that the evangelical character and preaching of the teacher are the sole tests of a valid ministry recognised in the New Testament. Let us see if it be not so. Paul is writing to the Galatian church. Judaizing teachers had endeavoured to pervert the gospel by mixing circumcision and the requirements of the ceremonial law with the doctrines of Christ. The apostle warns them to avoid such dangerous teachers. But why avoid them? Because they were not ordained? that would have been the main reason urged by those to whose errors we are adverting. No! but because they perverted the gospel-because they preached another gospel-because they troubled the church; but the writers alluded to inform us that erroneous doctrine is not a sufficient reason for discrediting a teacher's claims. The apostle says: Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." So strongly did he feel on this

66

subject that he repeats this sentiment in the next verse. Here is an apostle who declares himself, or an angel from heaven, accursed if they did not preach the pure unmixed truth of the gospel. His apostolic office is nothing. Angelic nature is nothing; his having been commissioned to preach by Christ, as Paul was, is not introduced as a palliative; the Galatians were bid to reject all, from the highest angel to the meanest teacher of the church, who did not preach the gospel.

Look again at the second epistle of John. When that epistle was written, "many deceivers had entered into the world;" their error was very much akin to modern Socinianism; they denied that Jesus Christ was come in the flesh. Christians are cautioned against those vagrant antichrists; but with what touch-stone are they to try them? "If there come any unto you and bring not”—his credentials of episcopal ordination? so write the Puseyites; but John says—“ this doctrine,” that is, the doctrine of Christ—if a stranger brings not this doctrine, that is enough to satisfy you that he is a deceiver-an antichrist— "receive him not into your house." Now Mr. Melvill and all who agree with him would say: “If there come any preacher unto you bringing a spiritual food little better than poison, or denying that Christ is come in the flesh, you have only to be certified that he is episcopally ordained, to welcome him to your house on peril of being regarded by Christ as the despiser of one of his representatives.

Our readers have now seen the different criteria contrasted. The writers bid us look at office; Paul bids us look at doctrine. They tell us to regard the apostle; the apostle tells us to watch the teacher. They tell us we are guilty of the crime of schism, if we leave the preacher who teaches falsely, if he is episcopally ordained. Paul wishes that the teachers of falsehood were themselves cut off from church fellowship. They ban and anathematize us for leaving accredited deceivers; Paul anathematizes the deceivers! They call such persons ambassadors and representatives of Christ; Paul calls them antichrists! They tell us that such ministers are clothed with the authority of heaven-that their office is unspeakably awful, and proportionate is the guilt of rejecting them—well! grant that they come from heaven-let there be no shadow of a doubt as they enter our houses of their origin—still we are commanded, on the

authority of inspiration, not to admit them on pain of being considered as "partakers of their evil deeds"-if they come from heaven, it is nothing to us when the God of heaven pronounces them accursed!

Enough has been said in refutation of this error. If our readers will search the scriptures, they will meet in every page with abundant evidence in proof of the grand principle which we have attempted to enforce that the tree is to be judged not by the opulence of the owner, nor by the luxuriance of its branches, nor by the beauty of the vineyard, nor by the richness of the soil; but by its fruits! So everywhere under the sun, christians are to be tried not by profession or privilege, but by their manifested resemblance to Christ. So ministers must be tested, not by their claims, but by their character-not by a vaunted apostolic succession, but by apostolic doctrine—nor are their hearers to bear their instructions or their presenceneither the sound of their voice nor a tittle of their claims, when they abide not in public and in private in the doctrine of Christ.

In our next number we shall show our readers how to refute the prevalent errors on the subject of apostolic succession and of schism.

K.

HISTORY OF ST. PAUL.

PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY, A. D. 50-54.

[Continued.]

Paul having left Athens arrived at Corinth, 44 miles. Here he found that honorable couple Priscilla and Aquila, with whom for awhile he abode, working at his trade of tentmaker, and resorting on the sabbath days to the synagogue, where he reasoned successfully on the great subject of his mission. When Silas and Timothy were come from Macedonia, Paul being pressed in spirit, testified plainly to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. This plain declaration aroused their opposition, and he leaving them with solemn warning, turned his attention to the Gentiles. He then entered the house of Justus, where he continued his ministrations. At this time, about the year 52, we may place the first epistle to the Thessalonians, which seems to